Admissibility of inquiry statements: such statements require formal examination and admission before the adjudicating authority, or they are inadmissi...
A High Court found that respondent No.3 was fraudulently incorporated with a name strikingly similar to the petitioner corporate debtor, breaching the prohibition on similar names (Section 4(2)(a)) and Rule 8; the court held the difference of a single letter and shared addresses, domain use and replicated letterhead demonstrated bad faith, and cancelled respondent No.3's registration. The court directed respondent No.4 (bank) to remit the account balance of the fraudulently incorporated entity to the petitioner's liquidation account. Directions for inquiry, penalties and compensation against respondent No.1 were reserved with liberty to file additional affidavits.
A High Court found that respondent No.3 was fraudulently incorporated with a name strikingly similar to the petitioner corporate debtor, breaching the prohibition on similar names (Section 4(2)(a)) and Rule 8; the court held the difference of a single letter and shared addresses, domain use and replicated letterhead demonstrated bad faith, and cancelled respondent No.3's registration. The court directed respondent No.4 (bank) to remit the account balance of the fraudulently incorporated entity to the petitioner's liquidation account. Directions for inquiry, penalties and compensation against respondent No.1 were reserved with liberty to file additional affidavits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
